On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can we say: "affordability"? The gist of the "data transfer" thread > assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy > the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage > medium changes.
Huh? Go back and read what I said... I *never* argued about how many people are or are not going to transfer their data. I don't care if 10 million people or one person transfer their data... my points about data transfer are about the process itself, not how many people use it. And an intelligent person won't transfer their stuff every time a new storage medium appears, just every time a new one becomes dominant, and when it looks like their current medium won't be around for much longer. > Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their > products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses) > regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted > Turner is the Guru of the genre, by now having copied and restored the > entire MGM movie library. Agreed. > Not so we consumers. There are tens of millions of 78rpm records out there > whose owners have not or do not think about transferring their data. Ditto > for 8-track tapes, 45rpm records, 8 and 16mm movies. Why? Where did we get talking about records? I'm talking about photographs. People didn't transfer their records because it was cheaper and easier to buy the CD version of the album. Think about it... there was no need to transfer their music albums because they could buy a copy on whatever media came next. The same people need to transfer their photos if they want them to last beyond the realistic life of the negatives. Personally, I don't care if they transfer the photos themselves or get a company to do it for them... that's irrelevant to my points. > Transferring data is damned expense is one why. Nostalgia in the guise > of being or owning contemporary stuff costs like h*ll. Here we are on > this list, most of whom still harbor the "boxes under the bed" > storage system. Why don't they (PDMLers), 100% of them, knowing what > they know, transfer their slide/negative/print data as per new storage > medium? Again, because the transfer is 1. Expense (priced a quality > DVD-R or RW machine lately)? CD-RW's are pretty cheap now unless you want the high-end ones that can run while you're working on your computer. I got mine for less than $200 CAN and it's worked fine. > 2. labor intensive > > 3. Time-consuming > > 4. boring. So don't do it, then. I'm not arguing that digitizing your negatives is the most fun or exciting job in the world. All I'm saying is that it's the *only* way that you stand a chance of being able to make high-quality prints beyond the life of the negatives. If you don't want to do that, fine. If it's too expensive for you, fine. If you'd prefer not to spend a day or so every 20 years doing this, fine. That's your choice. As for the time and labour factor, there are two parts to this. The only real time-consuming part is digitizing your archived negatives and slides in the first place, and you can cut down on this by using a scanner with software like Digital Ice or by having someone else do it for you. Or just buy a digital camera. :) Once your photos are digitized, it takes next to no time to transfer them to another medium. The size and price of storage media are always going down. If you think that taking one day out of 20-30 years is unreasonable, then that's your decision. You may find it "boring", but I bet a lot of us would find it pretty interesting. > Large newspapers/magazines keep huge amounts of their staff busy > archiving, transferring their merchant and intellectual properties on > microfilm and other storage media. Those with a vested interest in > maintaining their intellectual or creative property do. Those > without-don't. As I noted, transferring my negatives/prints to CD > didn't reduce the storage space used, just made it more accessible. > And who, beside me, gives a hoot about my images? Your great-great grandchildren, perhaps? If you don't care about the fact that later descendents or centuries might prize them as part of the historical record, then why archive them on CD? Keep them as negatives, enjoy the prints and negs while they last, and then let them crumble away into the dust. Again, I'm not arguing that people should archive every single one of their images digitally; I'm sure many people will only digitize their favourites or the ones that will mean the most to them and their families. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
